The two black folks who were arrested and had to endure the stress are allegedly small business people and ought to know that businesses need paying customers to survive, if not thrive.
Could they not have just bought one coffee if not two while they were waiting for their associate to arrive?
If they were not black or Hispanic, this would not have been news.
6
Actually, McDonald's coffee is cheaper and better. You can buy 3 large McD cofee for 1 your can barely buy at Starbucks.
Star-Crazed.
6
Unfortunately, I've sat through dozens of "diversity trainings", "sexual harassment trainings" and "cyber-security trainings." I haven't heard anything new, nor learned a single thing that I didn't know before. I haven't changed my take on the world at all.
I have only wasted time that could have been used to better effect by doing my job.
And most unfortunately of all, the people who truly need such trainings are the people least likely to be in them...
2
I miss Gwen Ifil.
1
It'll take a lot more than bias training sessions to fix the problems. A hateful, biased and bigoted President of the United States comes to mind. He certainly gets away with all his comments. Just a thought.
1
Does it matter to Sorkin that this whole business may be based on a lie or an error?
I read the Times quite thoroughly. Funny, I don't remember Times reporters asking the obvious questions. Was the managers behavior racist or not? Or was the store dealing with a recurring problem in which paying guests were unable to find seating?
If it wasn't a case of racism why is Howard Schultz putting his employees through this charade? Doesn't he realize that, if the incident had nothing to do with race, his actions are a grave insult to his employees -- he has implicitly conceded that they are racist.
Sorkin seems to think that the truth is irrelevant. If the incident "starts a conversation" about race, that is all that counts. He is mistaken.
Like many other people, my reaction is, there they go again -- we are being played.
Do I have to remind a newspaperman that the truth matters?
8
It’s unfortunate that two people had to endure the ordeal of being arrested. It’s even more unfortunate that they were two African American gentleman given the past history of racism in this country. But this is not 1960s Selma Alabama, the hysteria by the left wing media and the unhinged overaction by Left learning Starbucks is counterproductive.
What should be corrective action for the possible incompetence or even racial fear of one employee has been turned into some sort of white shaming teaching moment so the SJW race mongers can go and explain that their are two classes of Americans, the privileged class (white folk) and the victim class (black folk). And this will bring understanding? Dialogue is a discussion not a corporate sponsored agendized indoctrination lecture
6
Many people will critisize Starbucks just because they are Starbucks. One of our best friends is a store manager in Omaha and yesterday described the training they will all undergo today. The process included Starbucks buying Ipads for the online video training which had to be a huge expense considering how many stores there are. I don't think the company takes this thing lightly. I have been going to her store for 15 years now and they have the most kind, caring, friendly and diverse group of employees around. I commend Starbucks for thier initiative and wish them well. Naysayers be damned, be part of the solution or you're part of the prlblem.
2
Why couldn't Starbucks, legitimately, adopt the following policy? If management is *aware* of someone hanging out without buying anything, they will ask them to leave. They are not going to police the tables continually to check to make sure that everyone has purchased something. At the same time, if someone presents themselves to them as a non-paying guest, they will ask the person either to buy something or to leave. (For all I know, that was their policy in the Philadelphia incident.)
If that is or were to be the policy, it would be irrelevant to the Philadelphia case whether Starbucks allows many whites to hang out without buying anything. If I understand correctly, the men in that incident presented themselves to management as non-paying guests when one of them asked to use the restroom but was not willing to buy anything at the time. (I would think it would have been possible to buy a small package of cookies.)
If Starbucks managers typically tell whites who want to use the restroom but don't want to pay for anything that they are delighted to have them there, but call the police on blacks who say the same thing, then that would be a systematic racial disparity in treatment, and such a thing would justify this sort of training. Otherwise, I don't see what we can conclude from the incident.
3
p.s. I mean, for heaven's sake. I go into an establishment and ask to use the restroom. I am told, "Customers only." What do I do? Do I do what any rational person who needs to use the restroom would do, which is to buy a small package of cookies and say, "OK, I'm a customer: may I use the restroom now?" No, I sit at a table and refuse to buy anything. Of course I am going to look like a troublemaker, white or black.
Tell me if I'm getting the facts of the case wrong. In my opinion, this whole thing was framed by the original request to use the restroom and the inconsistency of what followed with that.
6
The police did arrest them.
To everyone arguing that starbucks is a "public" business: There is a big difference between a private for-profit business that is open to the public and a free public space (community taxpayer funded spaces and places).
Private businesses that are open to the public should have both regulations and protections. They should not be allowed to discriminate or refuse service based on race, gender, religion, etc. But as a private business, Starbucks, for example, is entitled to reasonably restrict tables and restrooms (and napkins, cream, etc) to paying customers.
7
There's an even bigger difference between a public business and a public space.
And you can't run an profitable business without the public.
Another thing. In this particular case, these two men happened to be patrons, there for a business meeting -- just because they didn't place an order immediately doesn't mean that they were loitering
2
Actually, they were not patrons. They did not buy anything. Starbucks is not the library or a park where you can just take up a table all day if you want.
Their "friend" was so late to the meeting that the manager had time to have words with the two men, call the police, go through all the questions that 911 asks when you call, wait for the police to arrive, for the police to have enough words with the two young men to decide to arrest and handcuff them. Yeah, they were there for a meeting. How convenient the "friend" shows up exactly at the moment they are being arrested.
I'm not disputing what happened. Those men were targets of a racist manager and police imo. They had every right to wait for their friend before ordering, which they had every intention of doing. Their's is a clear case of discrimination, and starbucks and the police should be held accountable. I just think it's a bad idea to open a cafe up for public use toilets and public lounging. There is a reason why every restaurant / cafe / business worldwide reserves their toilets and amenities for paying customers.
Here's the deal. Unless Starbucks has a different set of standard for each of its branches -- it is a public place where customers are encouraged to sit with no time limits, or the obligation to order something as soon as they enter.
By all appearances the Philadlphia manager either didn't get the memo, or get the full picture of why these two men were there to begin with.
And it wasn't because they were loitering.
2
I think the folks who run Starbucks are smart enough to appreciate the power of having become such a dominant business, practically a national institution, that people will want to stop in even without buying something. In the micro, it sounds like a bad thing to have "customers" in your store who aren't buying anything on this particular trip to your store. But look at their brand loyalty. In the bigger picture, this is a sign of success. It means you're more than just a business to your customers. That kind of brand awareness is priceless.
1
Confused as to why so many comments below are focused on the bathroom issue. The Starbucks manager was out of line not because non-paying customers wanted to use the bathroom, but because she called the police even after they explained that they were there waiting for a friend for a meeting. Sometimes I wait to make a purchase at an establishment until all parties are there. Starbucks needs the training because many people do not understand their biases in ramping up situations and calling police when it is completely unnecessary, something they are less likely to do to white customers.
6
I live in Seattle, am white, and have had white security guards tell me to leave an establishment for not purchasing something before sitting at a table. You do not know if the manager would have called the police on two white guys who were not buying something yet refused to leave.
The shopkeepers in my neighborhood are now telling people (via bullhorn) to get off of the property period because they are trespassing if they stand in front of the store. They will not allow you to congregate in front of their businesses claiming you are waiting for a friend for a business meeting let alone wait inside their establishment.
This all started after two young black men walked into a store, didn't buy anything, and then minutes later robbed the owner at gunpoint. The owner told me that he didn't want to confront the two young men for being in his store because it might seem racist.
4
This is all well and good, but it is not such the racial issue that is being played out by the MSM. Before this time, some Starbucks cafes (in cities) evidently had a customers restroom use only policy. A customer use only policy is understandable, it deters the homeless from camping out and drawing legitimate customers away. I am just guessing that at least some suburban Starbucks did not have this policy since there is not much homelessness in suburbia, and only customers any way would bother to drive to a Starbucks.
This customers restroom use only policy (formerly at Starbucks and still currently at many other places of business) was implemented partly because the US has a huge homeless problem. The homeless need places to camp out. In Phila, the bathrooms at B&N, also on Rittenhouse Square, are filthy, and reek, no legitimate customer would want to use them. Also, the Phila libraries are like the homeless daycare center also driving legitimate library users away.
Corporations like Starbucks should consider making corporate donations to homeless shelters. It will help a good cause and will discourage the homeless from camping out at their cafes and probably driving away at least some of their customers.
5
With all due respect, I disagree with you completely because you overlook the racial aspect of this problem by denying it, and then somehow manage to conflate the incident with the problem of homelessness when they in fact, were patrons!
1
I conducted interviews of perspective students at Starbucks for my college alumni association. I knew sometimes I would get there early, so I ordered an iced tea while I waited. In one case, the perspective student got there before I did, so he ordered a coffee while he waited.
While it is always good to have refresher courses on our implicit biases - and they work both ways - society also needs some refreshers on common courtesy and politeness. When you use a restaurant’s facility for something, the right thing to do is to patronize the establishment. I think it was just as wrong for the manager at the Philadelphia Starbucks to call the police as it was for the guys waiting for their friends to sit and not purchase anything. The restaurant pays rent, water, electricity, and WiFi bills that patrons take advantage of. Sitting around and waiting is essentially freeloading.
Too bad Starbucks gave in to the hysteria. The guys should have bought something.
9
Andrew, when I'm on the road, I often pop into a McDonalds for a quick pit stop. If I'm not hungry, then I don't buy anything. But I do not feel even the tiniest drop of reticence or guilt. Like Starbucks, McDonalds is a giant national chain. I have spent a lot of money in the last 40 years at various McDonalds. So now I feel entitled to walk into any McDonalds anywhere in the country and visit the restroom. If I were a coffee drinker, I guarantee that I would feel the same sense of entitlement at Starbucks if I were a regular customer.
But nobody has ever called the police on me for doing that, probably because I am a white lady and nobody notices what I do, the little rules I break, and nobody feels like I need to be in jail.
Black men should be able to live with that sense of comfort and invisibility too.
5
They might have bought something after their colleague arrived. Their colleague may have been planning to buy around for the group. They may have bought many things on previous occasions. They may have become regular customers on the basis of how well they enjoyed the atmosphere. All of these possibilities are reasonable BUSINESSES reasons for treating them graciously. Then they are the basic human man reasons. Your perspective, basically quid pro quo, is frankly a big part of what’s wrong with so many narrow minded businesses and with a new “immediate profit is everything” attitude ruining American life.
2
Buying something would have been courteous. However, lack of courtesy is far from criminal. Calling the police on someone for not ordering something is many times worse than not ordering something. Besides, who's to say they wouldn't have ordered something when their friends arrived? After all, that would have been courteous to their friends. It's ridiculous to blame this incident on the young black men.
1
I have a friend currently doing a show to introduce manners and etiquette to children. Why? Because she and her co-star got tired of working with snobby, spoiled, impolite kids! They saw a need and are working to share new ideas and hopefully open some minds. So far, it's a big hit with parents and kids alike, as the show is opening up discussion as to how to behave towards others. Well done I say!
A company tries to modify and expose their employees to opening their thought processes and everyone is convinced it's a waste of time. Well, maybe for some close-minded people who don't want to consider other perspectives. But for others who are actually open to learning something the session might actually be instructive. You never know where or how an idea can take seed and where it can lead. What Starbucks knows for sure is that they want to at least present their flock with some perspective and ideals that they value for their business. Good for them. I salute the attempt regardless of where it leads. Maybe bias starts at the familial or community level, but does that absolve companies, schools, and other entities to work to expose it? Stop all of this bellyaching and ask yourselves, where are your unconscious biases?
5
so many starbacks all over Tokyo. I stay hotel in the outerskirt of Tokyo and found one in the entrance of hotel.
When I was In US in 80-90s for university. Coffe shop available in US is ones from Dunkin dornuts, if i remember it correctly. Difficult to call it good coffee.
My niece wanted to work for Starbacks on part-time basis after entering college. She failed its interview and currently worked at a different cafe, though.
Sorry, not metnioning problems happening in US. Kind of weird to write abrasive words on customer cups or else in working time. Too straight forward, maybe. It is good part of american people speak frankly and honest feelings from the hearts.
But no need to express it in the wokring time when he or she servers drinks and comfortable time in shop.
I understand that it is quite difficult to handle in diversified culture in US. But there are some countries who rather have good relation ship between people in Ethnic back grounds.
I just feel that is such a way when I travel to business trip to Holand.
Realistically or not, is is worth visiting foreign countries with cultural backgrounds for a year or so when you are young.(learning their language as well so that you experience difficulties expressing feelings with other foreign language.
5
Whether this is a PR stunt or not belies the fact that this sort of "training" should begin at home, long before children have grown and developed these ingrained attitudes.
1
This what's scary about the left! They never asked what happened, they simply went to racism! Of course Starbucks looks foolish, The NY Times always looks foolish! and real people chuckle at the left's moronic behavior!
14
Just for the record. The "real people" aren't laughing because they know racism when they see it, and it isn't a joke.
2
That is some very expensive, and ridiculous, virtue signalling. You don't need a 4 hour session to tell the employees and local managers that your now don't have to buy anything to sit in the lounge and use the bathroom.
8
I don't believe that 4 hours of training will solve the problem, but can't understand the dismissive attitude. Expecting starbucks to end systemic racism in America or "invest in their community" is either incredibly naive or political posturing. if your interest is in solving problems and not self-promotion, you take the gesture as a small step in the right direction, encourage them to do more, and move on to the next fight.
4
The people pooh-poohing Starbucks efforts toward a more just and equitable world have been triggered. In this instance, they recognize something in themselves that makes them uncomfortable and that they don't want to face, and so they lash out in defensive anger. That, or they are incredibly bitter and unhappy people. Otherwise, why would anyone not support an attempt at bridge-building, kindness, shared connections, and greater empathy?
5
Schultz picked a Tuesday afternoon to shut down stores. Starbucks makes nearly all of its revenues in the morning hours and, as media reports have noted, has been desperate to find a way to increase business in the afternoon.
This is an empty gesture - made more so by the fact that Starbucks wouldn't dare give up their critical morning hour revenues.
2
And the fact that they are doing this during low business hours makes this an empty gesture? Sorry, but I'm failing to connect the dots here.
11
I didn't go to Starbucks before, and now I have even fewer reasons to go to Starbucks.
10
Many Starbucks in Manhattan have regular "street people" who camp there for hours on end and don't buy anything. Paying customers can't even get a seat because of this. Since the company has decided this is to be the norm, I plan on going elsewhere.
18
I am SO tired of reading "news" stories about what might happen, or what might not happen — such as whether Starbucks's 4-hour training today will be effective.
There is exactly zero value in such stories. Please, just tell us what HAS happened.
9
Throughout the article, it says Starbucks' and even Starbuck's. It's been this way since early morning.
5
It's still not clear that Starbucks did anything racist in this instance. Their stores are filled with people of all races and ages; as for the bathroom policy, I was denied the key code to a downtown Starbucks bathroom and I'm a middle-age white guy who was well dressed at the time. The question--and it needs to be answered with clear empirical evidence--is if the store employees as a disproportionate number of African Americans loitering to leave compared to other people loitering. Get back to me for my support when you have this evidence.
The real and pressing issue is this: when will Starbucks pay a living wage and stop thwarting union efforts? This is worth going to the barricades--not getting dragged into a defense of neoliberal "Thirdspace."
16
The hyper sensitivity of the left knows no bounds - just another example their totalitarian ways forcing everyone to agree with them no matter what. Try Dunkin Donuts - much better coffee
15
rickster, if we're totalitarians, then how did your comment get posted? In a totalitarian society, you would not be allowed to engage in ANY disagreement with the totalitarian power. That is what totalitarianism means.
So how can the left be totalitarian, if so many conservatives are having their anti-left opinions published right here where lefties we can all read them?
I would like someone to answer this question please. I am really getting tired of people who participate enthusiastically in the marketplace of ideas but still claim to be the oppressed victims of leftists cutting off their free speech.
1
I'm a frequent fixture at Starbucks, reading and perusing the internet. There is always a wide diversity of people there, both customers and employees. Often, some people are using their electricity and internet and table-space without buying a thing (other than free water), and the employees never bother them. I don't know what happened in Phillie, but it seems unfair to tar and entire company with the epithet racist because of the actions on one manager and zealous police. As I suspected, the barristas I've asked about their coming re-education session are cynical about it. A P.R. ploy, in my view.
9
I don't understand how one manager in one store in Philadelphia could be an indication of "systemic" racism. Why wouldn't it be enough for the employee be disciplined or fired, along with apologies to the two black men, and clarification of the policy about who can use Starbucks' facilities? What's predictable is not the criticism of anti-bias training but that, in a corporate image panic, Starbucks would close all of its US locations to probe the minds of their workers for unconscious bias using a program properly and publicly blessed by diversity and inclusion leaders. What's even more predictable is the over-intellectualization of the incident to a broader "white spaces" narrative. It's another in this era of wildly disproportionate responses to regrettable incidents.
9
I rarely go to Starbucks because you can never sit down.
People camp out with their laptops and do work for hours on end so those of us who would like to drink a cup of coffee and have a muffin for 10-15 minutes can't. It's an odd way to run a business.
Oh, and the coffee is always burnt.
16
Do the employees get paid for those 4 hours of attending sensitivity training?
12
Their reward is increased sensitivity, which is nice.
7
There are somethings more important than money.
1
For almost the same reason, what happened in this Starbucks reminds me of what recently happened here in NYC, when a white man in a Deli went off on a tirade against two Spanish-speaking workers -- even threatening to call ICE on them. His explanation?: "This is MY country".
Is this what we've now come to?
Hard to imagune one four-hour class will help.
5
To me this seems like a big overreaction to an unfortunate incident. I don't go to Starbucks because I don't like the coffee and it's to expensive. But I always see people of all races hanging out there with their computers. In fact at the closest one to me, most of the people going there and the employees are African - American. This kind of politically correct nonsense is partly why we have that oaf in the oval office.
23
It is over the top. The extreme left is as bad as the extreme right in this country. It is all race/gender all the time. My only hope for this country is the average American doesnt believe in the elitist garbage coming from the elite bi coastal media.
17
MM**I disagree strongly with the statement the extreme left as bad as the extreme right ... I consider myself very far left with libertarian leanings. The extreme right wants to start ww3 with N Korea and Iran, among other insane things. The extreme left, including me, wants Medicare for all. The extreme right is running the show. I do agree with the fact that it is Democrats that usually push this politically correct nonsense, to placate the few at the expense of the many.
They are both equally bad in their own special way.
First of all, if anyone - customer or not - can use the rest room at Starbucks as they can at McDonald's, then why lock the door to the rest room? it is silly and inefficient to expect Barristas to be in charge of taking and filling orders, and also of handing restroom keys.
Second of all, businesses have a right to restrict occupancy to those who provide custom. It is annoying to find people with one order of coffee hanging out at Starbucks for hours and hours, and occupying a seat at a table that makes it unavailable if you go in with a colleague.
What happened at Starbucks CenterCity Philly was not a racist incident even though the liberal media would love to turn it into one. it was a execution of a company policy that restrooms and tablespaces are restricted to use by customers, not by any random person, no matter their skin color.
The manager who was fired after the incident should sue the company for wrongful dismissal.
23
The Philadelphia employee who recognized loitering black men and called the cops should be applauded not retrained. Unless the training is in Woke = Broke. That I would support. In the glorious aftermath of the social justice invasion of ESPN and the NFL, there is now economics evidence that getting white people to hate you for an inappropriate political invasion of the marketplace is not good for business. Do frequent patrons of Starbucks (like myself) want to get coffee among lounging hordes of the homeless? No we don't, and we'll get our coffee elsewhere or make it at home.
22
given the horrid working conditions of Starbucks employees any time out is a good thing.
Shows how off base you are. SBUX is known for treating its employees alot better than most at fast food places. Nice try though.
4
All this free advertising for SBUX vs risking an expensive encounter with legal opportunists/bad PR for not reacting to Phila incident? That must have been a really difficult corporate decision...
From my experience as a SBUX barista, SBUX tries to "do the right thing" - there is or was a company-wide policy to give any non-customer requesting one a cup of water without question. Most stupid SBUX decisions occur at the local level, not corporate policy. As everywhere, there is plenty of stupidity at the managerial level, where cutthroat competition for hitting the right profitability numbers often turns people into monsters. SBUX is, after all, an all-American business, doing nothing that does not profit the bottom line.
3
"...four hours Tuesday afternoon to conduct racial bias training for its employees..."
If only the Kerner commission had thought of that.
1
No anti-bias training program will completely eliminate bias.
But give a hand to Starbucks for training its employees because training will reduce the frequency of incidents of bias.
As an analogy, consider sexual harassment in the workplace. Companies are required to train employees on how to recognize and avoid sexual harassment. And nobody expects this training will completely eliminate sexual harassment occurrences. Yet, the training will reduce such unwanted behavior.
In general, no training program is 100% effective at changing people's deep-seated, sometimes unconscious tendencies. But training can put policies in place that improve the environment. Congratulations to Starbucks for taking a necessary step and taking it very publicly.
6
A lot of the people commenting on this really seem to feel threatened by it. What gives? Is four hours of racial sensitivity training for Starbuck's employees actually going to have any perceptible effect in your life, let alone one that might harm you?
Most people who are reacting negatively to this training seem to be put off simply by the *idea* of it. Why even worry about it? What is your basis for complaining? And do you have a better idea?
5
No big surprise. This is just another example of how inbred racial prejudice is in this country... along with denial.
And not only do most people commenting here not have the whole story -- i.e. the two men in Starbucks were waiting for a colleauge before ordering -- but even if they had all the facts, the comments would probably run along the same lines....SAD.
5
How about indoctrinated race baiting at every turn in our nation's universities that is giving rise to these overreactions? Even SADDER. Actually pathetic.
@MM
How about a cursory glance through American History to better understand when, where, and how racism in this country all began?
No offense. But you might actually learn something.
In the Philadelphia Starbucks incident, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson sat at a table and when asked what they wanted, they replied they had brought their own bottled water with them. Starbucks sells bottled water as well as coffee. Whites who bring their own food or drinks into establishments that served food and drinks are also asked to leave. The Starbucks manager’s mistake wasn’t asking the two black men leave but in calling the police when they refused. She should have realized calling police risked turning a minor incident into a major racial incident.
The two black men have told their side of the story. Asked about Starbucks's policy that restricts non-paying customers from using the restroom or sitting in the store, Robinson said, "I understand that rules are rules, but what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. That's in any situation, whether there's race involved or anything." But no reporters appear to have interviewed the store manager to ask if she thinks rules should apply to all non-paying customers, regardless of race. The only identify her as white, as if her skin-color proves the incident was racially motivated.
24
Her privacy should be protected for her own safety, frankly.
5
She could be interviewed without revealing her name. The news media doesn't want to hear what she might have say. It's possible she a blatant racist, but she might be the manager of a store that has a problem with non-paying customers taking up table space and bring in their own food and drinks.
The one thing that has ZERO influence on, or value to me is a video speech from the company's CEO.
Put down the devices, stop bloviating, and TALK to each other.
3
This is a much smarter approach to equality than the chain's previous campaign, the clumsy "Race Together" initiative where a presumably non-trained barista would randomly invite you to chat about America's most intractable problems.
With this training session, the chain will ensure that no one will be denied access to the coffee house's previously established no rush lounge environment.
1
Starbucks is trying to do something to move us all ahead. That is wonderful. All the self-important people who are proclaiming it won't work or it's not right or whatever are doing nothing. Nothing is what we have done best in this county in the face of racial injustice and outright murder. Focused talking, listening, learning can help. I know. I grew up in the fifties with all the bias in the world around me (Why can't they just be like us?). I have to overcome the heritage every day. Listening, talking, learning. It gets the job done. So, hurray for Starbucks. May other follow the example AND ACT.
10
Only the self important people on the left are allowed to have an opinion? Gotcha.
6
You just can't win no matter what you do in America these days. If they had done nothing people would screaming about that, they do something people scream no matter what. I personally think Starbucks is way ahead of the game as far as being a socially conscious company and the actions of one rouge employee should not be such a reflection on them as a whole. My company has 16k US employees and believe me they do things ALL the time that do not reflect well on us but it's our response to it is what is important and our customers and clients know that. I will continue to patronize Starbucks as I think their response is spot on.
12
I wonder if it is legal for an establishment to tie the use of a restroom to a purchase. That is basically saying the toilets are "pay toilets" which I thought were illegal in most cities, if not nationwide. I am old enough to remember pay toilets in NYC stores in the 1960s, I believe they cost ten cents.
Racism cannot be trained out of people. The best Starbucks can do is insist its employees follow the stated policy regardless of their personal feelings. They can be klansmen/women when they are off the clock but not when they are wearing a Starbucks apron.
Starbucks "new" policy is only new for black customers, non-black customers were always welcome to hang out in the cafes for hours and use the restrooms without making a purchase. I had not heard of the police being called to remove white "trespassers" at any Starbucks location.
1
Starbucks is not a public place, so why shouldn't they be able to do what they want on their own property? What bothers me the most about this is the implication for individual property owners' rights.
8
@me
I hate to tell you this, but Starbucks IS a public place.
Not only that, but they make a point of it being a place where people can work on their laptops or meet-up.
Where are you from???
Taxpayers' money doesn't pay for Starbucks, therefore it's not a public place, IMO. Not a park, not a library, not a museum, not a public square or train/bus station. It's a private business.
Walk up and down Manhattan and you'll see signs at restaurants and other business rest rooms are for customers only. Are they racist? We just need to chill out a little and stop looking at everything with a negative eye.
30
The problem in the incident in the Starbucks in question is that apparently patrons hang around the location in question all the time without buying stuff, Starbucks are used as meeting places and the like, but the manager singled out a couple of black guys who were waiting for someone but didn't bother the other patrons (who were non black from what I read). It is legal to restrict things like bathrooms and tables to paying customers only, what is illegal is to have two sets of rules based on who someone is, like for example letting women use restrooms without a purchase but forbidding men from doing so. Unequal application of rules based on race is the issue in other words, not the rules themselves.
9
Will Political Bias also be part of the training?
Or is this just to placate the SJWs then back to business as usual?
8
Yes a victory for loiterers everywhere.
I am still waiting for the proof that one of the most liberal companies in a liberal locale discriminates against black loiterers and not Asian, Hispanic, or white loiterers.
Please no anecdotals.
29
I am still waiting for an explanation of what constitutes a loiterer in a place where the public is encouraged to hang out for hours aka a "third place."
5
At the time of the incident in Philadelphia other patrons noted in the news reports that people were in the place at the time hanging out who hadn't bought anything, that they often saw people using the restrooms, using tables, hanging out without buying anything, but that they then told the black guys to leave. I don't know what kind of proof, if media reports are all lies, then I don't know what you want, sworn affadavits or undercover cameras? If you don't believe what patrons told reporters, then you might as well just admit you don't believe that there is such thing as racial discrimination and it is all 'fake news' as that bastion of good reporting (Fox News) claims.
1
[[The National Football League set rules aimed at keeping any conversation about race or social justice far from its fields.]]
The NFL's "fields"...heh! That's funny.
Slowly but surely, the Left is eating itself. Even confirmed progressive Howard Schultz of Starbucks is not immune to the money-extortion machine.
Now it's time to have "anti-bias" training at the New York Times. What could possibly go wrong?
32
I am still waiting for NYT to discuss ageism.
7
@me
Here's a suggestion: Why not try a different thread?
Criticisms, not congratulations, that's the NYT way.
"An important first step," a good start, a useful gesture, all the usual rhetoric, followed by the Big Three put-down: shame, humiliation and embarrassment.
10
I have a group that will now spend every Tuesday night at Starbucks.
We will never buy anything and stay for about 3 hours.
We will politely and courteously inconvenience their patrons as much as possible.
We're all curious to see how long before we get the boot.
How about you? Make Starbucks your new free hangout???
22
If you plan to "politely and courteously" inconvenience Starbucks patrons, then that sounds like an intentional act of aggression to me, with the obvious purpose of disrupting business.
In such circumstances, Starbucks would be fully justified in kicking you out.
6
Why? Why would you do this? Just to be jerks?
10
I hope they call the cops on you .. stupid & ridiculous
3
I think that the key phrase in this article is "If it is effective..."
I cannot speak for all of the companies listed and mentioned, but from the unconscious bias training I took at Google, I would argue that unconscious bias training is largely counterproductive there, and would be almost entirely so at Starbucks.
There were generally two parts to Google's unconscious bias training: a section about disabilities, and another about race and gender.
The first was a largely informative piece about designing and structuring technology for individuals who might not be able to hear, see, or manipulate technology in conventional senses. It was informative and broadened my outlook on conventional technology.
The second section was a cartoonish caricature of racial, sexual, and cultural biases, that effectively detailed how "everyone is biased against <groups>". It effectively argued that being born black/female/gay was basically the same as being crippled, in the eyes of the corporate world, and that we are all racists, sexist, bigoted people, so we should do our best to help minorities and women because obviously we subconsciously hate them. It would have almost been funny if it wasn't official company onboarding.
I'd really like to see a transcript, but I can't imagine that too much of the Starbucks employee talks will face the first half, and I'm worried, at least somewhat, that the sessions will tend to mirror the racist and sexist propaganda pieces from the Google sessions.
11
What did google's bias training have to say about ageism? For example, ageism in hiring?
3
If I remember correctly, the only time that it came up was when they asked for examples of discrimination from the group.
So, does Sorkin think it is racist for a commercial establishment to insist that their premises (including restrooms) are for the use of customers only, or not?
The implication of the article is that Starbucks does think such a policy could be racist, hence their decision to change their policy:
"Starbucks also changed its policy, announcing that 'any customer is welcome to use Starbucks spaces, including our restrooms, cafes and patios, regardless of whether they make a purchase.'"
At least I assume that is what the quoted sentence means, although how someone can be a "customer" if he or she doesn't make a purchase is a bit beyond me... In any case, the problem of possibly racist enforcement of the "customers only" policy presumably goes away when the policy does.
7
Did you somehow miss the fact that the two men who were forcefully ejected were actually patrons waiting for a business partner before ordering?
And as for the racist part, it's certainly hard to deny that.
2
I don't go to Starbucks because I think their coffee is undrinkable. However, I feel for them. In our current political / social climate, no one can do right, ever. Every decision is held up for public scrutiny and excoriated in the Court of Social Media.
27
If the Trump presidency has taught us anything- it is that hidden racism can be "set free" when a leader implies it's OK to be racist. As noted in other comments, a four hour Starbucks session is unlikely to change hearts and minds - but the leaders of Starbucks are sending the message that it's not OK to act racist if you work for them. The (now fired) manager would probably not have called police if he/she had known it would result in being fired.
18
Fear of getting fired has nothing to do with whether original act was "racist".
1
Questions: How long were the young men monopolizing the table while waiting for their friend? 10 minutes? 45 minutes? How busy was the store at the time? What was their attitude when asked to buy something or leave? Would I have the nerve to sit at a table without ordering when there are people standing around me, hoping that I will get up so that they can sit and enjoy their drinks? Would I defy the barista's request that I either purchase something or let someone sit at my table? Does Starbucks have a racist corporate culture? I often see homeless people of all races hunkered down in Starbucks (even in Beverly Hills), and no one ever asks them to leave. Could it be that this was an isolated incident and not a corporate problem? Starbucks offers bonuses, 401(k) matching, discounted stock purchase options, adoption assistance, health coverage for employees and dependents (including domestic partners), and full-tuition coverage. They also do community service. In the current atmosphere, Starbucks can't even begin to defend itself without risking a backlash, so it makes a grand gesture by closing all its stores in order to provide "bias training." A snobby radio commentator said this was necessary because many Starbucks employees don't have degrees and don't know history. The employee who phoned in the 911 call called the loitering customers "two gentlemen." Too bad the police over-reacted and arrested them. Too bad there isn't any sensitivity training for customers.
9
I think you make clear that this is not a simple situation and that there are many sides to the larger issue. But what do you think about what Starbuck's is doing? And if you don't agree with that, what do you think they should be doing?
1
The police weren't the only ones who "over-reacted" in this situation.
3
Not the worst thing in the world for harried retail workers to get some downtime for paid training.
9
The whole idea of training for a entire workforce makes no sense simply because one individual manager made a mistake if that person refused restroom use because of race. I have been in establishments where I was told restrooms were for customers only and simply left. In addition, the idea letting anyone hangout at Starbucks regardless of any purchase being made makes no sense. The next time I buy coffee at a Starbucks and all the seats are occupied because people are just hanging out will be my last.
32
The men you are referring to were only waiting for a few minutes until their mother friends arrived. They were not hanging out.
7
This will turn out to be a disaster.
8
Why?
1
To get a measure of where Woodson is coming from, reflect on the opening of his linked WSJ article:
"Is Starbucks the next Selma? Many in the race-grievance industry are trying to convince Americans that it is."
Seriously, does anyone know anyone who made such a ridiculous statement? Of course, not. Straw man slayed.
PR is one motivation behind Starbuck's program, just as it is for Woodson's WSJ op-ed.
Starbucks' program is a start. That's all.
2
In addition to anti-bias training to focus on non-blacks whose "biases" apparently need to be explored, so that they dont' act out of prejudice, we need to have anti-bias training for young black males growing up in rough inner city environments, where their bias, all too frequently, is towards becoming part of a criminal gang. Why not explore THIS bias and why it exists and how these young men can overcome this bias and instead choose a healthy lifestyle?
After all, the biases we have that are self-destructive ought to be of highest concern, particularly in young people.
14
That bias exists in large part because of racism confronted daily by young black men.
5
If young black men did not commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes, maybe they wouldn't encounter "racism" or fear from other groups. Even Jesse Jackson acknowledged this.
@me
You've just stepped onto a minefield and don't even recognize it.
New York Times, Dec. 11, 2017: Standard corporate sexual harassment training doesn’t work and can backfire by reinforcing stereotypes, potentially making harassment worse. But training does protect companies from lawsuits. To actually prevent harassment, companies need to create a culture in which women are treated as equals and employees treat one another with respect.
Apparently you can make headway with racists in four hours but you can't get anywhere with misogynists. I wonder if the training helps with antisemites, I think I'll flip a coin.
5
So many answers here reflect the widespread resistance to even starting a public conversation about racism, which serves to sweep the issue under the rug and therefore to perpetuate continued racism. We have to start somewhere. It doesn’t matter if these training sessions are simply a PR stunt, or a heartfelt attempt to address the underlying issues that caused the incident (and I tend to believe it’s somewhere in between). Just like #MeToo, we need to talk about it in order to change it.
7
Please, the US hasn't shut up about race for more than 200 years. The only people who think "talking about" a problem can solve it are postmodernists who think reality is made up entirely of "narratives."
8
I think Starbucks created their own unique problem with this "third place" nonsense; if you allow people to camp out in your business for hours, they get the impression that it's a public place instead of the private property that it is. Then, when an eviction goes wrong, you look like the bad guy instead of a business simply trying to control their own space, and are forced to grovel in front of whomever chooses to be offended. If I were running Starbucks, after all of the bias training, I would really solve this issue by streamlining the stores (take out the comfy furnishings), thereby making it clear that the store's purpose is to sell a product, and not to provide a cultural experience.
23
But the cultural experience is part of Starbucks success.
2
What about the cops? They need training. Or replacement. Focusing on Starbucks is free publicity that doesn't fix the real problem.
3
In every Starbucks comment thread we find these confused, privileged people who don’t understand that their worldview and experience is not everyone else’s. These folks claiming that the guys at Starbucks weren’t waiting, they were loitering! That’s illegal! It’s offending me!
I would like to send you all to four years of sensitivity training.
9
Constantly striving to make a more perfect union.
Winners= Dunkin Donuts, vagrants and homeless persons who need to take a bathroom "shower"
Losers= Paying customers
37
Absolutely right - this is, if anything - a starting point. Dismissing a potentially bigger effort for needing a starting point is both short sighted and ignorant of process. One meed not claim victory, or defeat, at the start to see potential, to embrace potential.
This training isn't going to make one bit of difference. What will, is the new policy to allow anyone to loiter in Starbucks and use the bathrooms which the employees have to clean. I live in a residential area and still there are frequently no seats for me, a paying customer, because people have appropriated a table or two for their computer and stuff, they are not drinking any coffee and they stay for hours. How much worse this will be in more congested areas where people need a place to loiter. Soon, Starbucks customers will have to go to some other coffee shop where the facilities are for customers or Starbucks will go back to a more logical policy. How to discern who is loitering will have to be color blind and that is difficult to teach. People act on feelings.
24
Sad how even this effort has nay sayers.
I call it a start.
12
Here I thought that I was being a good, conscientious citizen by purchasing cups of burnt Starbucks coffee in order to enjoy access to free wifi and place to sit while I study. Now I can do it for free, provided there's space thats not already taken up by homeless drug addicts sleeping, charging their phones, or taking up half the store with their sleeping bags and other belongings (which is already a problem at my local Starbucks in Cambridge, MA).
29
I agree that the training will likely be ineffective--it's unrealistic to think that a 4-hour training sessions is going to change the minds or actions of someone who's a racist. But at the same time, I absolutely applaud what Starbucks is doing--it's at least making an effort and acknowledging that there is a problem and that's always the first step. I hope they're not doing it just for PR but even if they are, it's better than nothing.
5
[[thisisme Virginia
I agree that the training will likely be ineffective--it's unrealistic to think that a 4-hour training sessions is going to change the minds or actions of someone who's a racist.]]
"Racist" Meh!
It's unrealistic to think that a 4-hour training session is going to change the minds or actions of someone who was poorly trained to begin with.
About Starbucks, Yogi Berra might have said "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." It is impersonal and wildly successful. There are no "baristas" there, only button pushers. It's a volume business.
I would bet any amount that the "training" at Starbucks now resembles McDonalds (high volume, low quality) more than it does Whole Foods (customer satisfaction).
When Starbuck's bowed to anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter activists and dropped the ADL from its training cadre, the company lost both its moral high ground and me as a customer. Fortunately there are many caffeination alternatives.
19
It follows an incident in Philadelphia last month in which two black men were arrested simply for LOITERING in a store.
Fixed it for ya!
Loitering is still illegal in most of the USA.
3
True, but I think the correct term is "trespassing".
2
The two men were waiting to be joined by friends before ordering. They were waiting for about 5 minutes. They were not loitering or trespassing.
5
Please research "trespassing". If someone refuses to leave another person's private property after being asked to do so, they are trespassing.
I am very very dubious of this exercise in correctness. I also find it insulting that the (explicitly stated) implicit assumption made by Starbucks ownership is that their employees are all potentially racist. What about the management, the ownership; what do we know or hear about them? Nothing.That's what. But they get to unquestioningly hold this higher moral position in the public of being seen as forcing a recalcitrant company staff to face its inner er ..... something. I wager those employees are absolutely fine hard working people. I also would not be surprised if the whole incident that started this wasn't set up and a race-baiting stunt. That is what angers me: That potentially fake racism is being used now to in effect punish and tar an entire group of people with families, struggles and dreams of their own so Mr. Schultz can look and feel good about himself. I have to end this by noting that I observe a class of people in this country who think themselves "educators" of the rest their fellow Americans. They seem to elevate themselves to this post to sit as judge and jury.
15
This knee-jerk reaction of allowing people who don't purchase anything to sit in their stores and use the toilets? That seems like an idiotic response to this issue. A business has a right to restrict tables and toilets to paying customers.
52
The two men were waiting for friends for less than 5 minutes. I have used Starbucks bathrooms many times without ordering.
5
The reason they are doing that is simple, it means an employee cannot selectively enforce the rule and be in compliance with the policy, so a store manager can't tell a black customer to get lost because they didn't buy anything while allowing white patrons to do so, it takes away any justification outside creating a disturbance.
I think businesses have every right to restrict their facilities and such to people who buy something, but that also can lead to what we see, selective enforcement of the rules potentially based on bias. The one rule that public establishments have is whatever rules they have have to be enforced across the board. If a bar serves liquor until 11pm they cannot do that only for women while allowing men to drink after that time, they can set the closing time to any time they wish (as long as it is before the legal closing time) but it has to be equally enforced, same is true of any policy they set.
5
As a psychologist, here's what I see as an effective approach.
Because negative and positive biases are formed from earliest childhood and are usually reinforced as children grow older, I think trying to eliminate racial, religious or other biases in adults is extremely difficult, and often impossible. Racial biases certainly cannot be erased in a 4-hour training session.
However, rather than trying to change individuals' biases I think Starbucks and other employers should focus on employee behavior: how does management want employees to interact with patrons in order ensure that patrons have a positive experience and will want to return. The message to employees is: We want happy customers who return for more. You don't have to like all patrons, but here's what we expect you to do and say to ensure that all patrons have a positive experience.
It is within the purview of employers to set the terms and conditions of employment. It is therefore appropriate--and necessary--for employers to describe for employees the behaviors (including speech) management wants to see and hear when employees interact with patrons. Behaviors can be observed and evaluated by managers; those employees who fail to meet the required standards can be identified, given further training and, in extreme cases, terminated.
Employers should not waste time and money trying to modify employees' personalities; the focus should be on training/shaping employees to carry out desired behaviors and actions.
Starbucks stated good intentions and their self-interest are aligned and I hope this action will help. It's not easy to deal with the public consistently across thousands of location at all hours and they seem sincere.
Next time, why not invite some local cops? Some could benefit from replacing coffee and doughnut break with a latte and a lecture.
1
I agree that this is a great start, but for a slightly different reason than Sorkin sees.
If the session is well done, 175,000 Starbucks employees will be exposed to the phenomenon of unconscious bias. In our time, unconscious bias is a much larger problem than conscious, explicit racism. Discussing bias as "racism" fails on two counts - not only is it usually inaccurate, but it's also completely unproductive, since any hint of an accusation of racism completely shuts down useful dialog.
On the other hand, unconscious bias, since it is unintentional and since it is universal, carries no blame, and can be discussed more freely and therefore more productively. We all have biases, but we can learn to recognize them and reason against them, provided we're willing to acknowledge their existence and their power.
Furthermore, unconscious bias can readily be measured by relatively simple exercises, many of which are commonly available on-line. Testers have found that all of us, every human being, has unconscious biases - and most of us are surprised to find out how many and how strong those biases are.
Too much of the American discussion of race is still in terms of racism. Sitting 175,000 Americans down for an afternoon of exploration of unconscious bias is a very good start at a badly needed change in direction in our national conversation about race.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
12
Those implicit bias tests online are nonsense. The first set of pictures and arrows cause you to develop some basic muscle memory. Then they just swap the directions and colors of people, which your muscle memory isn't trained for, thus leading to some keystroke errors in the short-term, which is the only timeframe you are measured.
Implicit bias -- it's nefarious, everywhere, you can't see it nor define it. We must stop it!
Give me a break.
16
Racism is a form of unconscious bias, in the example of the starbucks for example the person involved saw two black guys hanging out and probably unconsciously felt like they were up to no good. A lot of people who don't harbor the notion that blacks or hispanics are inferior, are aghast that the country had Jim Crow laws, get outraged when an unarmed black guy gets shot, will for example walk to the other side of the street if they see a black guy walking the other way towards them, because they associate crime on some level with being black, a lot of the shootings by cops of black men stem from a deep seated association that a black man is likely to be a criminal with a gun and will shot him where they wouldn't draw on a white guy. That same cop can work with black cops, be friends with them, respect them, but still have this deep seated idea that any black guy is an automatic threat and react in ways not justified by logic, and the fear is irrational, not based on a cop saying "gonna get me a black guy' like some southern sherriff in the 1950's.
3
Bill D -
I would argue that the Starbucks incident did not reflect racism, but unconscious bias. Racism, by its suffix "ism," connotes an ideology, a consciously held and internally consistent system of beliefs based on the premise that the races are distinguishable morally, intellectually, or in some other fundamentally important respect. I very much doubt that the now notorious Starbucks clerk called the cops on the two African-American based on such a set of beliefs. Much more likely, the clerk was unconsciously inclined to the assumption that the two men were up to no good, because they were African-American. To my mind, that's not racism, but unconscious bias. Calling it racism only provokes impenetrable defensiveness, ending any prospect of a teachable or otherwise meaningful moment.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Give them a chance. How could it hurt ???
13
Yes, Phyllis, thank you, a positive, upbeat rational thought but not the NYT Way, as the first paragraphs are hyper-critical and dismissive. In fact, the entire article has that skeptical tone.
2
This seems right for Starbucks- an organization that has always made its' political correctness and progressivism very plain and well-known. So why should they not have a repeat of non-discrimination and get some heat off and publicity on. It's totally unnecessary from any practical standpoint though. Any blithering fool knows that they can easily get fired for being politically incorrect in organizations like Starbucks- maybe they need a reminder. Oh well
4
Baristas don't get fired for being snotty to seniors, though...
1
it's a long way from Canarsie Mr. Schultz. People will take advantage of you if you let them. Now you will have all peoples using the open door policy and taking advantage of it to get out of the cold, use free wi-fi, maybe shoot up in the restroom or clean up. The upshot is that hopefully this will take some of the stress off of Wawa's where alternatively housed people solicit donations of money and or food while paying customers walk in and out.
6
Oh come on. The two men who were waiting for friends for less than 5 minutes were not homeless or drug addicts.
1
From Richard Rodgers, "South Pacific":
[Verse 1]
You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught
[Verse 2]
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade
You've got to be carefully taught
[Verse 3]
You've got to be taught before it's too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You've got to be carefully taught
-----
Yes, before you are six or seven or eight, not as an adult.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT.
Thanks, Mom for carefully teaching me.
3
The words are not those of Richard Rodgers who wrote the music but of Oscar Hammerstein II who wrote the lyrics.
As a psychologist with several decades of experience in group process and sensitivity training, my opinion is that these 4-hour sessions to eliminate bias are more of a public relations ploy than anything of substance.
Racial, religious and other biases are inculcated at the familial and cultural levels over a period of many, many years, and can hardly be expected to be modified, much less erased, in four hours. The primary beneficiaries of such "trainings" are most likely the individuals and firms that are paid to provide the training.
I do believe efforts should be made to reduce (forget eliminate) biases, and to promote better treatment of patrons by employees, but these mini-sessions are quite insufficient and for some individuals may be as likely to aggravate as lessen existing biases. Changing behavior of employees toward patrons is fairly easy to manage; trying to change individual biases is pretty much a fruitless task.
Also, I think the head of Starbucks has made a huge error in saying that all Starbucks stores will be open to everyone, not just those who make purchases. I believe that in many cities this misguided policy will attract street people, the homeless, panhandlers and vagrants who wish to use the restrooms, nap in the chairs, ask for donations, etc. I can't imagine that any business could succeed in attracting patrons or getting repeat business if the patrons must compete with the homeless for seats, restroom access, etc.
51
I had 2 very different reactions to your comments - first, your last paragraph is what we see in our local starbucks. when the weather is bad, the local homeless spend the 2-3 hours between when the shelter closes and the library opens camped in starbucks. Starbucks is a business and I see this driving customers away.
The first 3 paragraphs - I would have liked to see what a distributed company like starbucks could do that you would see as an effective start.
1
The vagrant issue is what torpedoed Borders in my opinion, well, the local Borders at least.
3
When I first moved to this Texas size town I went to the nearby Starbucks to spend time preparing for my first semester as an assistant professor. On my second trip there I realized to same white people were there from my last visit and they seem to just sit there not doing anything not reading, not talking, and not buying anything. There was one grey-haired man and one woman; they were not bothering anyone except for the fact that occasionally the woman I talked to herself. I was hoping that they would eventually leave so I could take move from being directly under an air conditioning vent. When it became clear that they were not doing anything, I also realized that these people were probably homeless or otherwise had no place else to go. They were both in their late 40s or 50s.
My story seeks to point out how, for white people, Starbucks has always been an option if you are homeless, loitering or a vagrant. As a black woman, I understand the announcement about making Starbuck’s Restrooms open to everybody as a way to recognize how white people have been using the space all along. It tells me that the double standard between people of color an whites will be abolished. What happens now is that people of color are marked as different and problematic while whites are simply not marked, therefore people of color tend to become subject to a form of self-policing and social policing that the white homeless people I witnessed were not being subjected to while in Starbucks.
3
Saying that they were arrested "simply for staying in the store" is totally biasing the issue. They were not buying
anything. They were asked to leave. They refused to leave.
This should not be an issue at all.
(BTW: I feel the same about the guy that refused to leave the United flight. If you are asked to leave and you refuse to leave then the cops are called in. They should be.)
39
They behaved reasonably! That's why the (white) other patrons were so offended and started videoing the encounter. They were waiting for the rest of their party and then they were going to buy coffee. I have spent a lot of time in Starbucks, have used their bathrooms on occasion before buying anything...and I've never been hassled by the employees.
They settled with the police for $1 and an apology. Class.
15
And if they were white, would they have even been asked or noticed?
6
Whites use restrooms and tables at coffeeshops all the time and hardly anyone so much as raises an eyebrow. Within a span of 5 minutes, these two professional black men were arrested for the same offense.
Welcome to White Privilege 101.
7
One of my mentors who I've known for more than 26 years, had the privilege of working for and with for roughly 10 years, has been the EEO Outreach Manager and Ombudsman for a federal agency for almost 25 years. A major part of his job entails giving presentations/trainings such as the one Starbuck's is holding for its employees BUT not just on race, the whole gamut of Title VII, EPA, ADA, ADEA, etc., issues to employers and employees.
At first blush, this doesn't seem to fit the mold of a discriminatory act of an employer taking an adverse action against an employee because of protected status. The company has already changed its policy and procedures to deal with future instances so it didn't seem to meet the threshold of breaking with company policy either so, at most, this boils down to a customer service issue and political correctness.
2
Yes, it's a start in this "3rd place" space. We don't talk openly about who are welcomed, who are marginalized, or just blatantly mistreated in our everyday encounters while grabbing coffee or a park bench. If Starbucks takes the corporate lead, injects resources toward workforce development and promotion of equity, that's a good step in a positive direction.
11
The anti-discrimination laws don't say that employee's have to be actors and "welcome everyone". All are raised and taught about acceptance and so it is largely a family phenomenon until they get to school and see the kind of favorites played there. Then the work place has it's favorites as well. They are certainly not discriminatory against minorities any more. That's done a 180 and everyone knows it.
3
The real irony is that whenever i go into a Starbucks, i notice that only minorities are working behind the counter. This is the real problem. Not Starbucks', but Americas.
3
First, you don't know the meaning of the word "irony."
Second, I can't tell if you're upset that "minorities" have jobs at Starbucks. Should "they" not be hired there?
Third, no one believes that "minorities" in New York don't patronize Starbucks.
9
Seriously? A wide variety of people work at Starbucks. You are suffering from "noticing bias".
3
No surprise here. This mayor is beyond corrupt, and that goes for his wife, too. Clearly her own political ambitions take precedence over the well being of the city, not that that’s surprising in any way.
5
So, basically, Starbucks opened up 8000 temporary mini-reeducation camps to address "implicit (i.e., imaginary) bias." The whole thing is a ridiculous exercise in Political Correctness.
Maybe they should schedule another session blaming coffee for causing "climate change."
41
-leaving out the Anti-Defamation League in the training was the cherry on top to clinch the Nestle deal.
8
The bias is not imaginary. I am white. I have often waited for friends in Starbucks before purchasing my coffee. And I have often used the bathrooms without ordering anything. The cops have not been called.
5
I have been through bias training at two different employers and one college. It involves an instructor, in my experience always white, telling everyone that all white people are racists and the only solution to the problem is to hire the instructor for a large consultancy fee. There is usually a session where the instructor writes a lot of racial slurs on a whiteboard to get everyone all worked up. No matter what objection someone raises, there is always a pat answer. Progress is achieved, however, in getting people of all races, ages, genders and creed to roll their eyes together.
15
I work in leadership higher education and have received variations of this training many, many times. My experiences could not be more different from yours. In my experience, this type of training brings people together, creates greater empathy, and feels really good. I am sorry you received such negative training. It assure you it doesn't have to be that way (and I know Starbucks will not have a white man lead the training.)
3
In truth, the only real solution is hiring instructors from more diverse backgrounds, something Starbucks should also think about doing when it comes to filling Management and upper Management positions.
Why? Because it always starts at the top.
1
Are you in a leadership position? I wonder how free the other people in your sessions — those whose jobs depended on it — actually were to say how they felt during these training sessions. I think it might have made more sense for Starbucks to simply require each site to post guidelines/new policies in the work area and tell employees that they are not to call the police unless someone is stealing or being disruptive or fighting, etc.